|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 11:19:55 AM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 1338
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
JoToP,
Thank you for allowing me to see into your view [Preterists Post-mil] a little better; it has helped to heal some areas where there was a root of bitterness towards the Post-mil view (like Tom has towards the Pre-mil view) . I have very much enjoyed our time sharing together (just as I have come to enjoy the time I spend with Tom in these forums), many of which I whole heartily agree with. For example:
quote:
Well, with reference to the covenants, Hebrews 8 is very instructive: Verse13 states, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” The New Covenant is the one predicted by Jeremiah (31) in which it is defined that his law is written on his people’s hearts so that, by grace, we are able to obey him by the power of the Spirit. That speaks of present redemption. So, the Old Covenant with its sacrifices, priests, Temple, etc. is translated away from us and resides, as it were, in Christ in the heavenly Temple. In the New Covenant, we are his people and he is our God and we are kept from straying by a change of heart (“circumcision of the heart” as Moses put it, something the commonwealth of Israel did not have, though the law was incumbent upon them.)
However, some areas are made too complicated without much study. Some of us, myself included, do not have the time and/or ability for much study in order to prove-out what you have said. So I will give these complicated areas to the Lord, and if it be His will that I see them in a new light (according to your words/view) I believe the Holy Spirit will prove them out in my life's journey---little by little, line upon line, here a little there a little.
Therefore, I will now leave this discussion and rest in Ecclesiastes 12:10-14 (my earthly father called me [spit-out in joking sarcasm fashion] "the preacher" when referring of me to my mother); And also rest in the best message I've ever heard taught on scripture and spiritual matters (the one I told you about in another thread; that is in my blog; that you found you didn't have time to read; which I do understand, in the same manner as much study is for me.) So until we meet again, may our Lord bless and keep you as the apple of His eye [Psalms 17:5-8].
God bless,
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 11:23:59 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
Could you explain how any postmills warped your faith or mistreated you. Since Postmills believe the world to be getting better and better I am having a hard time picturing how you could have been mistreated. Was it because you did not share their view?
You allude to this quite often and I am just curious how you were harmed by the postmill view as I find it much more palatable than dispensationalism.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 12:44:25 PM
|
|
|
JoToP
Posts: 691
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sooner
Really? Everyone agrees with the creeds?
There was never a time when everyone agreed with the Creeds. Is there a point? The heretics did not agree, the schismatic did not agree, but the Creeds separated the true Church from the false notwithstanding.
quote:
Has the Holy Spirit taught us everything there is to know or does He continue to build on Truth?
This is not an answering question anymore than the above was an answer at all. Comprehensive knowledge was never the point of revelation. And no, the Holy Spirit does not continue to build on truth. He finished that at the close of Revelation. He does continue to give more precise exegesis of what has already been completely revealed however.
quote:
And the Reformation was what?
Exactly what it claimed to be, a re-formation.
quote:
Me: We want Christ to search our bows for fruit
You: Shakespeare?
Scripture. Matt. 21
quote:
Why do you add “so to speak”?
For those stubborn one’s who refuse to see that death is not completely destroyed. “Abolished” does not mean completely destroyed (i.e. obliterated). Is there an echo is here?
quote:
Oh wait there it is:
2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death(so to speak), and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
That was mildly humorous.
quote:
Anybody see “change of venue” in either Thayer of Strong? Me either.
I like lexicons as much as the next guy, and I haven’t found one yet that makes an absolute statement on a definition that does not take into account the context in which a word is used. Unfortunately there are too many amateur scholars out there who think the lexicon defines the Bible. The truth is that the lexicographers list definitions in accordance with different usages throughout the Bible (and other writings in the same language). So what you have is the list you have graciously provided:
quote:
G2673
?????????
katargeo?
Thayer Definition:
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
1b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away
2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
2c) to terminate all intercourse with one
Strong
G2673
?????????
katargeo?
kat-arg-eh'-o
From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: - abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.
So.... which is it? They’re not all saying exactly the same thing, so how do you know? I see definitions in their I can use in my view. “To render idle” works for me if you don’t like “change of venue”. I was just trying to explain how he “rendered idle”.
You’ve got your lexicons in my face. What am I supposed to do now? Bite my nails or something?
quote:
Yet you won’t go to Genesis to prove your premise.
That’s because we have a commentary in Romans 5. But if you want Genesis, fine. Here’s Genesis. Genesis 5:5 (ESV) “Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.” Why? Why did Adam die? Was it because God created him to die? Or was it because of sin. Now, let’s go to Romans 5 again: Romans 5:12 (ESV) “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” What death came through the sin of this One Man. All Death spiritual, forensic, physical... the whole nine yards. There is no qualifier which is why I use the phrase SO TO SPEAK.
quote:
If physical death was not the result of Adam’s fall,
It was. Otherwise, you’ll have to have it that death is a gracious creation of God for the benefit of all his creatures. Does the phrase Last Enemy have no meaning to you whatsoever? When God created the world it was “very good”. Where does death come into that picture, I’m assuming you are viewing physical death as some form of natural law???
quote:
Nor will you dare to answer what the Tree of Life provided.
A-a-ah. So death IS a natural law. And death is “very good”. I see. I’ll answer this simple question with a question. Those who now live in heaven, will they ever die?
quote:
But where does Paul say death will ever be obliterated? Remember what you said:
In quoting Isaiah 25:8. But whether you take it literally or symbolically, you have to handle the finality of Rev. 20:14 (ESV) ‘Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.” What is Death? Spiritually dead. Condemned to the Lake of Fire like a reprobate. How dead do you want dead to be. In Hell is pretty dead. And Death in Hell is about as destroyed as any evil thing can be. Back to 1 Cor.15— I believe it is PAUL who is speaking here— 1 Cor. 15:26 (ESV) The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
quote:
Since Paul taught that Jesus abolished death, then you should be able to point to where Paul taught Jesus obliterates death.
Did that. Keep your tenses straight though.
_____________________________
And if you don't like THAT answer, I have more in
J  T P's
The Blogge
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 4:58:00 PM
|
|
|
chalkstc
Posts: 540
Joined: 5/13/2005
Status: offline
|
It has been said..........."It is always darkest before the dawn".
We seem to find this rather scriptural in the first verses of Genesis. God starts the day by saying "the evening and the morning". We can see from our earthly vantage point that as the Sun sets it is a type of death and burial on the horizon. Only to rise as a type of resurrection on the following morn.
When providing a source of food for the next two kingdoms, He said "let the earth bring forth" and the plant kingdom "rose" from the ground.
And when we come to the Creation of man, it is also from the ground but the man's body is only formed and not complete till God imparts to Adam God's own breath or Spirit. Only then does man have physical life.
I find in this the earliest type of the future resurrection of man's body after physical death passes upon Adam and all his progeny.
Why would God with all His creative power choose for man to come into existence in this way if He was not teaching us the importance of the physical body?
Why do we see quasi resurrection of saints in the OT and the NT if the body was not an essential part of man's makeup? I say quasi, for these that were raised did die again.
Why do we see healings in the OT and the NT if the body was eventually going to be discarded?
Because in the resurrection, the change from corruption to incorruption will be a physical reality.
But for the believer, a "spiritual" or new birth while still in their flesh is necessary before they are chosen for physical resurrection, never to die again. The preterist stops short here. They only see this spiritual resurrection and thus when they die physically, they believe they receive their spiritual bodies and their physical body that goes to the grave is just decay and no longer part of the man.
But is this true? Was Adam just a body? Was he just a spirit? No. The body houses the spirit and soul of man. That is what makes him complete. At physical death, the body is separated from the spirit or what the Bible calls the inner man. The body to the grave and the inner man to God who gave it. But that is not the end of the story, for man is no longer complete without his body.
Jesus died and rose physically. He ascended physically. And according to Acts 1:8-11, He is returning physically.
1) we shall be like Him
2) He changes our vile bodies like unto His
3) we are waiting for the redemption of our bodies
4) we are the wheat or the "much fruit" of Jn 12..........He rose from the grave, we shall also.
5) if we die before He comes, we are called the dead in Christ...........but what part of us is dead? The body only. So how can some say we are already resurrected and yet still be called dead?
We are to be changed when He comes (parousia). If He came in 70 AD, how was it a spiritual coming only when the very word "parousia" denotes a physical presence with?
And if the saints were to be changed at that so called Coming, what was the change? John the revelator spoke of no change in himself, nor do any of the early Church speak of a resurrection already past, in fact just the opposite is true. They saw it as still future and after the coming of the AC. Were these saints deluded? Where were the preterists then that documented their error? But we got them today. Why did the prets wait so long?
I also think it is a missnomer to call 70 AD as the second coming of Christ for judgment but rather, a day of visitation.
And the greatest error of Preterism is no consumation or restitution of all things. There is no ending to God's plan of redemption in their doctrine............everything just continues as from the beginning...........people are born, some are saved and some are lost. NOT!
As Genesis is the first book in which man forfeited eternal life, Revelation is the last book which still offers it but not forever, for God's cutoff date is at the GWT and then Eternity future for all who are saved and raised in their "glorified" state.
"It (the physical body) is sown in corruption" and the same "it (the physical body) is raised incorruptible".
JMHO,
Frankie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 4:58:42 PM
|
|
|
Mr.
Posts: 1603
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
Greetings,
It looks like by definition that Eusebius and Adolph Hitler had a lot in common?
Loyal Gypsy
Actually, Eusebius had more in common with the Lord Jesus Christ than with Hitler. It was the Lord who spoke of the judgment to come upon that wicked and perverted generation of unbelieving apostate Jews. Eusebius just believed that our Lord's words came to pass.
Are you defending those Jews whom our Lord condemned?
_____________________________
God is love
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 5:13:14 PM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 1338
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Was it because you did not share their view?
Debbie,,, I don't think you'll understand this, but someone else might: No, it was because I was hungry and thirsty and they would not feed me or give me drink; except for the crumbs that fell from the table. I wanted--- needed more. I was like the certain Greeks who came up to worship at the feast, in John 12:20 & 21, who said, "Sir, we would see Jesus". I "would see Jesus" [the Word---John 1:1-5], but was prevented.
98% of what the Churches (2) I was raised in taught [fed] was the history of the church and the reformation, including the creeds, doctrines, and dogma of the church; but I did not find or "see Jesus" in these things. So I changed to Pre-mil where I did get to "see Jesus" and found food and drink for my hungry and thirsty soul; whereby I came to know Him and follow Him!
I am not saying teaching these things are wrong, but they hold no value without the ability of seeing Jesus; which is first order of business for the Church [Matthew 28:19]; but some seem to have forgotten this important factor.
JoToP,,, Thank you for the open private note invite.
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 5:37:28 PM
|
|
|
Mr.
Posts: 1603
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
I should add that apparently Eusebius may not have seen a connection between the Olivet Discourse and the Apocalypse. I believe that he followed in the tradition that John received it during Domitian's reign.
_____________________________
God is love
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 7:00:19 PM
|
|
|
FatherKnowsBest
Posts: 70
Joined: 9/10/2005
From: Sandpoint, ID
Status: offline
|
Jotop,
quote:
quote:
What would you say would be the unacceptable and heretical doctrines with respect to preterism?
That there is no future judgment. This digs deeply into the doctrine of God. Without future judgment there is no final justice and if there is no final justice, God is not just. This idea that God culls to heaven out of a perpetually fallen world is a cheap victory which is no victory at all. The rebel dropping into hell one at a time while the living rebels continue to propagate their seed on and on is unjust. And if there is one thing the Bible assures the oppressed saint of on earth it is that justice will be irrevocably done and there will come a time when the “way of the ungodly shall perish”. Forever.
I certainly would say that the great white throne judgment has already taken place, but also the wicked of today are judged the moment of death. If you say this is no victory, then your idea of victory is not biblical. Was Christ victorious at the cross? By His victory, we have victory through Him. This has nothing to do with eliminating all wickedness on earth.
1co 15:54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
1co 15:55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?"
1co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
When Paul spoke of death and hades being swallowed up in victory, he defined how this will happen: when the sting of death, which is sin, and the strength of sin, which is the law, is done away with.
It is clear from Paul in 1 Cor. 15 that the ones who denied the resurrection of the dead also believed that those who have fallen asleep in Christ have not perished.
1co 15:18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
Paul is agruing from the logical conclusions that denying the resurrection of the dead will bring. If they didn't believe that those who had fallen asleep in Christ would be saved, then Paul wouldn't have used this argument. They would have said, "what's the point, we know that those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished"? So if those who had fallen asleep in Christ are included in the resurrection of the dead, then we have a problem: they denied the resurrection of the dead, but they did not deny the salvation of those who had fallen asleep in Christ.
Think of it this way also. If we deny the resurrection of the dead, then are we denying the salvation of those in heaven? Paul clearly said that if there was no resurrection of the dead, then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 7:17:36 PM
|
|
|
sooner
Posts: 133
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
There was never a time when everyone agreed with the Creeds. Is there a point?
Yea, the point is the creeds and confessions are not the unified voice of the Bride.
I make no apologies for holding to the Creeds and Confessions. They are the unified Voice of the Bride.
quote:
Unfortunately there are too many amateur scholars out there who think the lexicon defines the Bible.
Ahhh gee, us poor dumb Okies ain’t as smart as you seminary boys. We havta use them lexicons. Now ya tell me them lexicons ain’t really no good. Help me out wuldya? What is the greek word for obliterate?
quote:
I see definitions in their I can use in my view. “To render idle” works for me if you don’t like “change of venue”.
Problem is, as you reminded us all, that people still die, so how did Jesus “render idle” death?
quote:
“Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.” Why? Why did Adam die? Was it because God created him to die? Or was it because of sin. Now, let’s go to Romans 5 again: Romans 5:12 (ESV) “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned”
You have yet to prove that physical death is the result of the fall of Adam. This death that is passed on is spiritual death.
quote:
What death came through the sin of this One Man. All Death spiritual, forensic, physical... the whole nine yards. There is no qualifier which is why I use the phrase SO TO SPEAK.
You can use all the bold type you wish, but I’m still waiting on your proof that physical death is a result of Adam’s fall.
quote:
Does the phrase Last Enemy have no meaning to you whatsoever?
Why I believe I have seen the term used before. Lets see………….
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
That last enemy will be destroyed. I know you hate using lexicons to define words, but others might find this helpful if not amusing:
destroy
G2673
καταργέω
katargeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
1b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away
2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
2c) to terminate all intercourse with one
Well, what do you know. It is the same Greek word that is used in 2 timothy.
2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
So the last enemy that you say has not been destroyed is the same enemy that Timothy claims was destroyed by Jesus. Yet I am a heretic for making the connection and taking Timothy at his word.
quote:
When God created the world it was “very good”. Where does death come into that picture, I’m assuming you are viewing physical death as some form of natural law???
So “very good” would have been no physical death in the Garden? No seeds dying to make new plant life, animals with tremendous eating etiquette to eat pants without uprooting a single one. Imagine no fall therefore no death. Animals constantly reproducing, with no death, spreading throughout the garden exponentially.
quote:
A-a-ah. So death IS a natural law. And death is “very good”. I see. I’ll answer this simple question with a question. Those who now live in heaven, will they ever die?
Why answer with a question? Why not just tell us what the Tree of Life provided? In case there are some other uneducated/amateur scholars out here I will post the verse:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Now, I will answer your question. No, those in heaven will never die because they are immortal.
quote:
But where does Paul say death will ever be obliterated? Remember what you said:
In quoting Isaiah 25:8.
So Is. 25:8 speaks of this “end of the world time” that you say is still future?
Isa 25:7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.
Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.
Isa 25:9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
I agree, Is. 25:8 speaks of this “obliteration” of death. However it is clear not only from NT writers but also OT writers this was a 1st century occurrence.
Albert Barnes agrees with this heretic:
Death - Vitringa supposes that by ‘death’ here is meant the wars and calamities with which the nation had been visited, and which would cease under the Messiah. In this interpretation Rosenmuller concurs. It is possible that the word may have this meaning in some instances; and it is possible that the calamities of the Jews may have suggested this to the prophet, but the primary sense of the word here, I think, is death in its proper signification, and the reference is to the triumphs of God through the Messiah in completely abolishing its reign, and introducing eternal life. This was designed, doubtless, to comfort the hearts of the Jews, by presenting in a single graphic description the gospel as adapted to overcome all evils, and even to remove the greatest calamity under which the race groans - death.
As does Clarke:
Isa 25:8 -
He will swallow up death - He, by the grace of God, will taste death for every man. Heb_2:9. Probably, swallow up death, and taste death, in both these verses, refer to the same thing: Jesus dying instead of a guilty world. These forms of speech may refer to the punishment of certain criminals; they were obliged to drink a cup of poison. That cup which every criminal in the world must have drunk, Jesus Christ drank for them; and thus he swallowed up death: but as he rose again from the dead, complete victory was gained.
From these three verses we learn: -
I. That the Gospel is a plenteous provision: “I will make a feast for all people.”
II. That it is a source of light and salvation: “I will destroy the veil. I will abolish death. and bring life and immortality to light.”
III. That it is a source of comfort and happiness: “I will wipe away all tears from off all faces.”
So why does Paul use those verses dealing with spiritual death in a passage you say proves the end of physical death?
Why does Paul allude to Hosea when speaking of physical death when Hosea is dealing with spiritual death?
Hos 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
quote:
But whether you take it literally or symbolically, you have to handle the finality of Rev. 20:14 (ESV) ‘Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.
The finality from a book you tell dispies describe events that were to shortly begin. Remember:
Rev. 1:;22:6,7,10,12,20 (ESV)
Chapter 1:[1] The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. [3] Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.[7] Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. Chapter 21:[6] And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. " [7] " And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." [10] And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. [12] "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. [20] He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
What do you suppose he's trying to say???
So why stop at Rev 19? Is there something in the text that says otherwise? This is why I passed from a partial-preterist to a full-preterist. Consistency is a problem. After describing all of the events of Revelation the angel says this:
[10] And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
I agree with Norman Geisler on this point. Speaking about Hanegraaff and his partial preterist fiction book LD (Last Disciple).
F. LD affirms that "John was told not to seal up the prophecy because its fulfillment was [in the] fore future," not in the "far future" as Daniel was told his was (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) (LD, 395).
Comments: Here again, this agrees with the partial preterist view that John is speaking about the first century, whatever applications it may have to later generations. But if Revelation 6-18 refers to the first century, then why not the whole book since John was told, according to LD, that all of Revelation was to be unveiled for the near future? And if this refers to the first century, then one is driven to full preterism which both sides admit is a heresy since it says the resurrection is past (2 Tim. 2:18). There is no consistent hermeneutical way to separate Rev. 19-22 from 6-18 on preterist grounds. Indeed, the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15) which is during the Tribulation announces the coming of Christ. And the verses speaking of a "soon" coming, as LD interprets them, refer to the whole book of Revelation from beginning to end (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10).
quote:
Keep your tenses straight though
Grammatical advice from someone who said:
This is not an answering question anymore than the above was an answer at all.
I see definitions in their I can use in my view
quote:
sooner,
You seem to be posturing that "death" in Scripture is always to be defined as "spiritual death", am I right?
No, clearly physical death is mentioned in scripture. However, when death is associated with the Law or “Adam’s death” it is in my view speaking of spiritual.
quote:
Do you have some sort of gnostic-like view that the body is of no account or something?
Ah, yes. The old gnostic Ploy. <<YAWN>>
quote:
Because "soma" is a very important word in the theological doctrine of anthropology, in case you didn't know it.
We dumb Okies sure apreciate you helpun us learn. You just outa seminary master?
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 7:41:18 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2436
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zachmarko
I should add that apparently Eusebius may not have seen a connection between the Olivet Discourse and the Apocalypse. I believe that he followed in the tradition that John received it during Domitian's reign.
Greetings,
According to the Hebrew perspective I have found something very interesting
Various Cut and Paste in Quote’s
quote:
The letter peh means "mouth" in Hebrew, and the letter ayin means "eye." The sages explain that the deepest of hints is woven into the poetic verses of Lamentations: the entire tragedy resulted from putting the peh, the mouth, before the ayin, the eye. The mouth talks of expectations and existing beliefs, and the eye then sees what the mouth predicted it would see –
Even if an objective interpretation of the same visual input would have yielded a different result. The group of spies went together, experienced the same sensory perceptions, and nonetheless reached opposite conclusions.
According to original Divine plan, our settling the land would have been permanent; there would have been no such thing as exile and the Temple would never had been destroyed. That is the reality we should have seen. Our own doubts and preconceived notions, however, resulted in our fabricating a very different reality.
The spies returned on the ninth day of the month of Av, and their negative report penetrated the hearts of the Jewish people, shattering the hope of many and prompting them to ask to return to the horrors of slavery in Egypt rather than face the challenges that lay ahead in Israel.
The tragedy of Tisha B'av has its roots literally in the oldest mistake in the book.
The eye then sees what the mouth predicted it would see Our own doubts and preconceived notions, however, resulted in our fabricating a very different reality. this mistake is literally the oldest one in the book. We find the peh (mouth) preceding the ayin (eye) as far back as the Garden of Eden. "And the snake said to the woman, you will not die. For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes shall be opened and you shall be Godlike and know good and evil" (Genesis 2:4-5). The snake planted a notion in Eve's mind. It was only after the snake's spin that Eve saw the fruit was good to eat. "And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat and desirable to the eyes?" (Genesis 2:6).
Thus we have the differences in Preterism and believers in the literal physical re-appearance of Christ, but to support any view the evidence that is found in the Bible and history, if one was to place it on a scale, so to speak, speaks for itself.
quote:
The Temple was destroyed on Tisha B'Av, at the end of August, and as the flames spread into the residential sections of the city, along with the Roman legions, Jewish resistance crumbled quickly. The city was completely under Roman control by the 7th of September
Tisha B'Av (???? ??? tish‘ah b?-a?) is a major annual fast day in Judaism. Its name denotes the ninth day (Tisha) of the Jewish month of Av. It was on that very same day, the ninth of Av, that both the First and Second Temples were destroyed. The group of spies went together, experienced the same sensory perceptions, and nonetheless reached opposite conclusions. The spies returned on the “ninth day” of the month of Av, and their “negative report” penetrated the hearts of the Jewish people.
In this way, let us say if Eusebius did not develop the Arian controversies then Adolph Hitler (A Christian) would have been void of fuel…so to speak, some these early Church Fathers were a bunch of sick puppies! But then again this is also a prophesy as spoken by Jesus in John 12:35
Then Jesus said to them, "A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going.
Adolph Hitler:
quote:
Arianism was a Christological view held by followers of Arius, a Christian priest who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. Arius taught that God the Father and the Son were not co-eternal, seeing the pre-incarnate Jesus as a divine being but nonetheless created by (and consequently inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a "creature"; in this context, the word is being used in its original sense of "created being."
The conflict between Arianism and the Trinitarian beliefs was the first major doctrinal confrontation in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by Emperor Constantine I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea
It is quite simple to understand, in reference to the darkness Jesus was speaking of.
“After” the “legalization” of Christianity
A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going.
I believe Jesus said he did not come for that purpose, to comdem the world, where did you find this?
quote:
Are you defending those Jews whom our Lord condemned?
Since our early Church fathers decided to legalize Christianity. under which Law is he going to comdem us for? The Jews or the Christians? According to the New Testament where there is no longer a sacrifice for sin?
Preconceived notions result in fabricating a reality very different than the one God had intended.
The letter peh means "mouth" in Hebrew, and the letter ayin means "eye." The sages explain that the deepest of hints is woven into the poetic verses of Lamentations: the entire tragedy resulted from putting the peh, the mouth, before the ayin, the eye.
Loyal Gypsy
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 8:10:35 PM
|
|
|
Mr.
Posts: 1603
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
In this way, let us say if Eusebius did not develop the Arian controversies then Adolph Hitler (A Christian) would have been void of fuel…so to speak, some these early Church Fathers were a bunch of sick puppies!...
...and Eusebius eventually rejected Arianism.
< Message edited by zachmarko -- 1/19/2006 8:13:01 PM >
_____________________________
God is love
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 7:17:29 AM
|
|
|
FatherKnowsBest
Posts: 70
Joined: 9/10/2005
From: Sandpoint, ID
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zachmarko
Dear Preterists, I just wanted to ask your opinion on something.
2 Thes. 2:1-10, "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."
The part I want to focus on is "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming".
Preterists hold that Nero was the Antichrist, but a question that usually comes up is: "if Nero was the antichrist, and the Lord came in AD 70, how could Nero have been slain by the Lord if he died in AD 68?"
I believe my question has been answered by comparing two sources.
"Now as Vespasian was returned to Cesarea, and was getting ready, with all his army to march directly to Jerusalem, he was informed that Nero was dead, after he had reigned thirteen years and eight days." (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 4.9.2.491)
A few months ago or so, Tom answered one of my questions regarding a quote from Josephus. I shortly after purchased Josephus's works and read through parts of this section. Just a few days ago I was reading in J. Stuart Russell's Parousia and I came across the following.
"Further, 'the man of sin' is doomed to perish. He is 'the son of perdition,' a name which he bears in common with Judas, and indicative of the certainty and completeness of his destruction. 'The Lord is to slay him with the breath of his mouth, and to destroy him with the appearance of his coming.' In this significant expression we have a note of the time when the man of sin is destined to perish, marked with singular exactitude. It is the coming of the Lord, the Parousia, which is to be the signal of his destruction; yet not the full splendor of that event so much as the first appearance or dawn of it. Alford (after Bengel) very properly points out that the rendering 'brightness of his coming' should be 'the appearance of his coming,' and he quotes the sublime expression of Milton, -- 'far off His coming shone.' Bengel, with fine discrimination, remarks, 'Here the appearance of His coming, or, at all events, the first glimmerings of His coming, are prior to the coming itself.' This evidently implies that the man of sin was destined to perish, not in the full blaze of the Parousia, but at its first dawn or beginning. Now what do we actually find? Remembering how the Parousia is connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, we find that the death of Nero preceded that event. It took place in June A.D. 68, in the very midst of the Jewish war which ended in the capture and destruction of the city and the temple. It might therefore be justly said that 'the appearance, or dawn, of the Parousia' [insert Greek words here...  ] was the signal for the tyrant's destruction.
"It does not follow that the death of Nero was to be brought by immediate supernatural agency because it is said that 'the Lord shall slay him with the breath of his mouth,' etc. Herod Agrippa was smitten by the angel of the Lord, but this does not exclude the operation of natural causes: 'he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost' (Acts xiii. 23). So Nero was overtaken by the divine judgment, though he received his death-blow from the sword of the assassin, or from his own hand."
I believe my question has been resolved. Do you preterists agree?
Zach,
I believe Nero is the best choice for the fulfillment of this. J. Stuart Russell gives a convincing argument for this. I agree with him that a Roman is much more likely than a Jew. For a while I was considering one of the rebel leaders as a good choice. The only two that could be seriously considered is John of Gishala or Simon. But according to Josephus John was put in prison and Simon was reserved for triumph to be killed later, and this does not sound like it would be the fulfillment. The thing that keeps me from completely accepting the Nero fulfillment is the part about the man of sin sitting in the temple. Do you have any ideas about this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 9:49:25 AM
|
|
|
JoToP
Posts: 691
Status: offline
|
Larry,
quote:
I certainly would say that the great white throne judgment has already taken place, but also the wicked of today are judged the moment of death. If you say this is no victory, then your idea of victory is not biblical.
No, sir. It is your view of judgment that is unbiblical. Like the Premillennials, you have put a wall between your eschatology and all other doctrines of Scripture so that your eschatology is not informed, nor does it inform the other doctrines, particularly the doctrine of God, particularly his Divine Justice. It is quite true that God has justice on the individual whom he condemns to hell, but that person leaves behind a world racked with man’s inhumanity to man. And it goes on and on... where does it end? Never? If you think that the oppression of the orphan, the widow, the poor, the blood of the innocent that cries from the ground, the prayers of the saints asking God for vengeance and retribution, the impreccatory prayers are unimportant to God you have not the first clue why God sold Israel into Exile and, though you have worked out all the fine details with regard to A.D. 70, you have no idea why that event even took place. God calls nations together to judge them in order that he may bring a final end to the oppression of man. He does it from nation to nation, he has called many nations together for judgment in the passed and in the end he will call all the nations of the earth together in one final Court. Your view is unbiblical because it ignores the Dominion Mandate which stipulates to man the very purpose for which God created man in the first place. And do you think man is no longer obligated to that charter? If so, you are quite wrong. And do you think God will not call humanity together and see what he has done with the graces; the natural resources, the intellectual capital, the redemptive graces, the political systems, the educational facilities, the technologies, everything that man has made— God will call for an account of everything the Race has done, not just the individual. He will separate the sheep from the goats.
Sooner,
quote:
Yea, the point is the creeds and confessions are not the unified voice of the Bride.
No response. You performed a cheap trick and only quoted part of the quotation, to make it suit your needs.
quote:
Ahhh gee, us poor dumb Okies ain’t as smart as you seminary boys. We havta use them lexicons. Now ya tell me them lexicons ain’t really no good. Help me out wuldya? What is the greek word for obliterate?
Did it again. This is why this is my last post to you. You don’t listen.
quote:
You have yet to prove that physical death is the result of the fall of Adam. This death that is passed on is spiritual death.
Why not ask me to prove that grass means all grass when you define it as only Kentucky Fescue? That’s the sense of this “argument”. No. I tell you what, my friend. I think you need to prove that death, in Scripture, only refers to spiritual death and not to all death. I think that unless the Bible clearly qualifies death, it means death. Prove me wrong. I have no obligation to your demands.
quote:
Well, what do you know. It is the same Greek word that is used in 2 timothy.
Glad you caught up. Now, which definition are you going to pick in your lexicon, Oky? Hint: try using context.
quote:
So “very good” would have been no physical death in the Garden? No seeds dying to make new plant life, animals with tremendous eating etiquette to eat pants without uprooting a single one. Imagine no fall therefore no death. Animals constantly reproducing, with no death, spreading throughout the garden exponentially.
This is not a theological statement. It is a demonstration of a mind that is so conditioned by corruption that it can not see past it. Corruption entered the world, if you’ll read on in Genesis. Which means it wasn’t there before sin. Is that what your problem is, you can’t imagine a world without death? I hope for it, and so have all Christians since the coming of Christ. Maybe the problem is not so much the teaching of Scripture as the condition of faith.
quote:
Why answer with a question? Why not just tell us what the Tree of Life provided? In case there are some other uneducated/amateur scholars out here I will post the verse:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
The Tree was Sacramental, a symbol of the life they had, just as the Tree of Knowledge was sacramental. The Tree of Life had no more power to give actual life than the Tree of Knowledge had power to give knowledge. The knowledge came from the consequences of eating in rebellion against the law. The life came from God. Was it continually sustained life? Yes. Man did not have life in himself. The Tree of Life reminded man of this. The presence of the Tree in no way presents us with the idea that there was a threat of man dying, he was in perfect union with God and God sustained his life. Besides, what if the Tree was actually vested with power (I do not believe it was). If God told Adam to eat of it in order to live, it would be God’s way of sustaining his life... forever. So, what’s your point? You take a view that death is a natural law. What does that say about your view of God and creation? That God views death as a good thing. Prove that from Scripture. Death is never presented as a good thing in all of the Bible... and I think you know it, too. As for seeds and plants dying... what California nonsense. There is no soul in plants. You’ll excuse me if I don’t adjust my theology of redemption in accordance with your imagination.
quote:
Now, I will answer your question. No, those in heaven will never die because they are immortal.
Then death is not a natural law after all. It is an invasion. Thank you.
quote:
The finality from a book you tell dispies describe events that were to shortly begin. Remember:
This is why we are called Partial Preterists. We do not hold that that portion of the book has been fulfilled because we see it in connection with all doctrine of redemption. Obviously you and Barnes and Clarke do not. You find it necessary to downgrade the definition of death to a purely spiritualized form in order to shore up your view. Jesus wept because Lazarus was physically dead. To Christ, death was a tragedy. All death in any form. That is God’s opinion of death and it is the only one that counts. He did not make man to die. Eternality is the norm in God’s economy, it is the natural law of creation. Sin is a cancerous invader that has brought death in its train. No mental acrobatics can eradicate this from Scripture.
I wish there was a challenge in this discussion, but there isn’t. What you argue against is child’s knowledge. You do it for a paradigm. That’s sad, Oky. Your preterism is a good start, but you’ve taken it too far. The destruction of the Temple is not the point of Matt.24. The end of a redemptive age and the beginning of a new is the point and it is far more fascinating than burning cities and people eating each other.
quote:
Grammatical advice from someone who said:
This is not an answering question anymore than the above was an answer at all.
I see definitions in their I can use in my view
This is what the discussion has ground down to. I leave you to savor it.
_____________________________
And if you don't like THAT answer, I have more in
J T P's
The Blogge
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
